|
|
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
|
|
|
<case id="50941" source="Oyez API" schema="simple-legal-case-xml-v1"><name>Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist</name><docketNumber>72-694</docketNumber><term>1972</term><court><name>Burger Court (1972-1975)</name><identifier>burger4</identifier><href>https://api.oyez.org/courts/burger4</href></court><parties><firstParty role="Appellant">Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty</firstParty><secondParty role="Appellee">Ewald B. Nyquist, Commissioner of Education of New York</secondParty></parties><dates><date type="argued">1973-04-16</date><date type="decided">1973-06-25</date></dates><citation><volume>413</volume><page>756</page><year>1973</year><href>https://api.oyez.org/case_citation/case_citation/14869</href><justia_url>https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/756/</justia_url></citation><jurisdiction>Appeal</jurisdiction><facts><html><p>New York enacted Chapter 414 of its Education and Tax Laws, which created aid programs for nonpublic elementary and secondary schools. These amendments included Section 1, which provided a grant for the maintenance and repair of schools that served many low-income students; Section 2, which provided tuition reimbursement for low-income parents; and Sections 3, 4, and 5, which provided tax relief for parents who did not qualify for tuition reimbursement. After the institution of these amendments, the Campaign for Public Education and Religious Liberty challenged the amendments in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that these amendments violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The District Court held that Sections 1 and 2 violated the Establishment Clause, but not Sections 3, 4, and 5.</p>
|
|
|
</html><text>New York enacted Chapter 414 of its Education and Tax Laws, which created aid programs for nonpublic elementary and secondary schools. These amendments included Section 1, which provided a grant for the maintenance and repair of schools that served many low-income students; Section 2, which provided tuition reimbursement for low-income parents; and Sections 3, 4, and 5, which provided tax relief for parents who did not qualify for tuition reimbursement. After the institution of these amendments, the Campaign for Public Education and Religious Liberty challenged the amendments in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that these amendments violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The District Court held that Sections 1 and 2 violated the Establishment Clause, but not Sections 3, 4, and 5.</text></facts><questions /><conclusion><html><p>Yes to all sections. In a 6-3 decision, the Court affirmed the District Court on maintenance grant and tuition reimbursement and reversed the District Court on income tax relief. The Court cited earlier decisions that established that under the Establishment Clause, a law must "first, reflect a clearly secular legislative purpose, second, must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and third, must avoid excessive government entanglement with religion." Writing for the majority, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. acknowledged that New York's interest in creating a positive educational environment was a clearly secular purpose. Section 1, however, did not limit the use of the grants towards maintaining facilities used for secular purposes. This distinguished Section 1 from other aid programs approved by the Court in the past in <em>Board of Education v. Allen</em> and <em>Tilton v. Richardson</em>. Since "all or practically all" of the schools that qualified were affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, the maintenance grants would "subsidize and advance the religious mission of sectarian schools" in violation of the Establishment Clause. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justice William H. Rehnquist concurred in this part of the judgment. The Court also struck down Section 2, as the tuition reimbursements did not "guarantee the separation between secular and religious educational functions." While the Court recognized the possibility that reimbursement money would not end up in the hands of religious schools, the grants would attempt to "enhance the opportunities of the poor to choose between public and nonpublic education," which would advance religion. Lastly, the Court reversed the District Court with regard to Sections 3, 4, and 5, ruling that effect of tax relief was similar to that of the tuition reimbursement and therefore unconstitutional. The Court in <em>Walz v. Tax Commission</em> upheld New York's property tax exemptions for religious organizations. However, the tax exemption was designed to prevent government oppression of religion through taxation, not for the promotion of religion.</p>
|
|
|
</html><text>Yes to all sections. In a 6-3 decision, the Court affirmed the District Court on maintenance grant and tuition reimbursement and reversed the District Court on income tax relief. The Court cited earlier decisions that established that under the Establishment Clause, a law must "first, reflect a clearly secular legislative purpose, second, must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and third, must avoid excessive government entanglement with religion." Writing for the majority, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. acknowledged that New York's interest in creating a positive educational environment was a clearly secular purpose. Section 1, however, did not limit the use of the grants towards maintaining facilities used for secular purposes. This distinguished Section 1 from other aid programs approved by the Court in the past in Board of Education v. Allen and Tilton v. Richardson. Since "all or practically all" of the schools that qualified were affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, the maintenance grants would "subsidize and advance the religious mission of sectarian schools" in violation of the Establishment Clause. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justice William H. Rehnquist concurred in this part of the judgment. The Court also struck down Section 2, as the tuition reimbursements did not "guarantee the separation between secular and religious educational functions." While the Court recognized the possibility that reimbursement money would not end up in the hands of religious schools, the grants would attempt to "enhance the opportunities of the poor to choose between public and nonpublic education," which would advance religion. Lastly, the Court reversed the District Court with regard to Sections 3, 4, and 5, ruling that effect of tax relief was similar to that of the tuition reimbursement and therefore unconstitutional. The Court in Walz v. Tax Commission upheld New York's property tax exemptions for religious organizations. However, the tax exemption was designed to prevent government oppression of religion through taxation, not for the promotion of religion.</text></conclusion><advocates><advocate for="argued the cause for appellants in No. 72-694 and for appellees in Nos. 72-753, 72-791, and 72-929"><name>Leo Pfeffer</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/leo_pfeffer</href></advocate><advocate for="Assistant Solicitor General of New York, argued the cause for Nyquist et al., appellees in No. 72-694 and appellants in No. 72-791"><name>Jean M. Coon</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/jean_m_coon</href></advocate><advocate for="argued the cause for appellants in No. 72-929 and for appellees Boylan et al. in No. 72-694"><name>Porter R. Chandler</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/porter_r_chandler</href></advocate><advocate for="argued the cause for appellant in No. 72-753"><name>John F. Haggerty</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/john_f_haggerty</href></advocate></advocates><decisions><decision type="majority opinion" winning_party="Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty"><description /><votes majority="6" minority="3"><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="2"><justice>William O. Douglas</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_o_douglas</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="4"><justice>Potter Stewart</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/potter_stewart</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="6"><justice>Thurgood Marshall</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/thurgood_marshall</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="3"><justice>William J. Brennan, Jr.</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_j_brennan_jr</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="dissent" vote="minority" seniority="5"><justice>Byron R. White</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/byron_r_white</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="dissent" vote="minority" seniority="1"><justice>Warren E. Burger</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/warren_e_burger</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="7"><justice>Harry A. Blackmun</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/harry_a_blackmun</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="majority" vote="majority" seniority="8"><justice>Lewis F. Powell, Jr.</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/lewis_f_powell_jr</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="dissent" vote="minority" seniority="9"><justice>William H. Rehnquist</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_h_rehnquist</justice_href></vote></votes></decision></decisions><source><href>https://api.oyez.org/cases/1972/72-694</href><raw_file>D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\json_data\api.oyez.org_cases_1972_72-694.json</raw_file></source></case> |
